You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is called the "jewel of atomic theory" because it allows for quantitative predictions of a huge number of atomic states using quantum mechanics. Although the QED techniques were adapted to the problems of nuclear theory in the 1950s, they did not lead to a rigorous quantum nucleodynamics (QND). The core problem has been the assumption of a central nuclear potential-well to bind nucleons together, in analogy with the Coulomb force that binds electrons to the nucleus. By replacing that fictitious long-range nuclear potential-well with the experimentally-known, short-range nuclear force, QND becomes possible.

Author Bio

Undergraduate at Princeton University (Princeton, USA), graduate student at Tohoku University (Sendai, Japan) and Oxford University (Oxford, UK), post-doctoral research at Zurich University (Zurich, Switzerland), invited researcher at ATR (Kyoto, Japan), full professor at Department of Informatics, Kansai University (Osaka, Japan). Seventy-plus articles published in refereed science journals, four scientific monographs, most recently, Models of the Atomic Nucleus (Springer, 2010).

Your paper is pretty interesting, though rather removed from my experience beyond an undergraduate elective course in nuclear physics. At the risk of showing how ignorant I am of nuclear physics, or what might be called classical or pre-QCD nuclear physics, I am going to bounce an idea here. It seems to me that the LDM and the IPM might represent different phases of a nucleus. The two approaches seem to reflect different scales with which the isospin nuclear force acts.

Some years ago emergent supersymmetry was discovered in the physics of the nucleus. It has been my speculation there is some sort of phase transition in the nucleus. This phase transition might be similar to BCS superconductivity, but with a twist. The conductivity of a medium is

σ(ω) = j(ω)E(ω).

The conductivity σ(ω) = Re[σ(ω)] + iIm[σ(ω)] for BCS conductivity the Re[σ(ω)] determines how well a superconductor absorbs photons of frequency σ(ω) for ω > ω_c = 2Δ the photon can demolish a Cooper pair into two uncorrelated electrons. The critical frequency or Δ is determined by a Bogoliubov coefficient. This connects with a phase structure for black holes, or for collective systems that have properties analogous to black holes. The photon entering a black hole has a relationship to a photon exiting the black hole by Bogoliubov coefficients. The black hole may possess a charge, or BPS gauge index, and the incoming photon will interact with the charges on the stretched horizon. For ω > ω_c the photon penetrates the stretched horizon with charged fermions in a correlated or Cooper pair type of state. The wave equation for the vector potential is

(∇^2 - ∂_t^2+ m^2)A^μ = 0,

where the mass is an effective mass m^2 = q|ψ|^2 from the coupling with the fermions ψ. This results in a dispersion relations and a frequency dependent σ(ω), where for ∇^2A^μ = k^2A^μ, where as k --- > 0 the conductivity is

σ(ω) ~ lim_{z--->0}E(ω,z) B(ω,z)

This is analogous to computing the effective the impedance of free space on the boundary of an anti-de Sitter spacetime in the AdS/CFT correspondence. The conductivity is independent of the interchange E < --- > B, where the conductivity is constant for ω = ω(k) < ω_c. The current is the proportional to the potential, from σ(ω) = j(ω)E(ω) constant, the .current

j(ω,k) = const A(ω,k) ~ const ωE(ω,k)

where the current is divergent at ω = 0. This is then a superconducting phase

For AdS_2/CFT_1, the CFT is SL(2, R) or under Euclideanization a representation of an SU(2) isospin gauge theory. This is the nucleon force in a nucleus. The inherent supersymmetry in this correspondence may then be the source for the emergence of supersymmetry in some nuclear states.

Thanks for the comments. The topic of the “phase” of nuclear matter is complex (the gas-to-liquid transition has been studied mainly in the framework of high-energy multifragmentation, see “Statistical Models for Nuclear Decay“ A.J. Cole, IOP, Bristol, 2000, for discussion). Although the identity of the solid-phase and gaseous-phase IPM description of nuclei has motivated by own research, whichever “phase” is assumed, the surprising finding from the 1990s is that nuclei exist in well-defined IPM states only 75-80% of the time (Pandharipandhe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 981, 1997), with the remaining percentage being “transition” states. John Wheeler and Niels Bohr both commented that the LARGE nuclei have many characteristics of solids, but, from the perspective of the lattice representation of the IPM, it appears that the 20%-25% of non-IPM states might be due to the fluid movement of nucleons between lattice sites on the nuclear surface... a liquid-like “skin” around a lattice core. The emergence of “supersymmetry” might be more evident in the lattice than in the liquid….

The AdS/CFT analogues appear to hold for some solid state physics systems with heavy metals. This leads to superconductor behaviors and is thought to be a case of how high temperature superconductivity physics occurs. I would tend to agree that if this happens with nuclei this happens in the lattice phase. If I understand properly the liquid drop model pertains to highly excited nuclei, which is a case where the nucleus has been excited into a “melt.” At much higher energy I presume one could say the nucleus is vaporized into a scattering of protons and neutrons. There was some work at the tevatron along those lines. There are though some heavy ion work and experiments with HRIC and now the heavy ion work at the LHC which is searching for black hole.AdS like behavior in quark-gluon plasmas. This would then represent a more extreme case; a case where the nucleus is replaced with a QCD-lattice of quark-gluon physics.

Your excellent essay presents a clear example of the fallacy of non-unique explanations, where a conventional picture is assumed to explain a set of results, even though an alternative picture may reproduce the same results with greater logical consistency. Unfortunately, this fallacy is quite prevalent through science, and indeed all human endeavors. You might also be interested in my own essay (The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality), where I point out that neutron diffraction from a crystal does NOT uniquely prove that the neutron is a de Broglie wave. The same diffraction results follow for a small-particle neutron scattering from a lattice with quantized momentum transfer.

Thanks for the comments. I will respond to your essay elsewhere, but want to follow up on our common concerns here.

In connecting the dots to form a picture (whether ink dots on paper or data points in our minds), everyone is guided by tacit assumptions about what the final picture should look like. Once the picture has been drawn and made explicit, however, it is hard “not to see” the final product in the mind’s eye – and nearly every new data point will act only to reinforce that view. The “bias for the familiar” is a plague on all scientific endeavor and means that, especially for those of us trying to rethink fundamental physics, we need to offer more than “alternative” views. Alternatives are necessarily less familiar… and consequently suspect! Fair or unfair, we need to do two more things: (1) show how our alternatives are indeed improvements, and (2) show how the historical context led earlier researchers to their (we believe, mistaken) views. The first is simply the development of the new idea itself (and is fun and creative work), but the second is the more arduous task of understanding the ideas of others.

Congratulations Norman - your many years of hard and original work on the problem of nuclear structure are gradually bearing fruit as more and more people read and respond to your approach. I am particularly grateful to you for stressing the FCC (face-centered-cubic) lattice as the one Nature prefers. As you know I have adopted it in my own theory (of everything - or nothing - i.e. in the vacuum ;). There is something exquisitely beautiful about the diamond-like arrangements of nucleons - shown in the illustrations of your essay. Dirac would have admired your work - he was moved by beauty in physics as this 1970's interview shows.

I think we share a sense of what is beautiful, but I am repeatedly reminded of the truth that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So, you and I see beauty in lattice symmetries, while others see greater beauty in the act of experimental verification. The Higgs boson is a good example, but I would say that the collective effort that led to that result is more beautiful than the result itself. In any case, the FQXi essays are good examples of different levels of conceptualization, where we stake out our individual claims of “local” beauty. (Meanwhile, we await your essay…)

Hi Norman Indeed we are blessed to have this openness to beauty in general,and to enjoy Japanese gardens and sense of design and harmony. But the sort of beauty in physics goes beyond just the lovely illustrations - it is in the knowledge of the logic, economy and sheer intelligence in the workings of nature. Of course some may object and say that we impose this sense of order on nature with our theories and ideas, but I think we as natural organisms have evolved in much the same way as atoms and molecules did - and share the same logic!

I just submitted my colorful FQXI essay today it was harder to pare it down to the required length than just writing it!

It is a very interesting essay. I reproduce the text from abstract that interests me.

"The core problem has been the assumption of a central nuclear potential-well to bind nucleons together, in analogy with the Coulomb force that binds electrons to the nucleus. "

I believe the problem is still more fundamental and originates from concept of conservation as applied to energy (with neutralization) while no negative mass or energy particles have been found till to-date. If neutralization is extracted out of conservation, Konservation is left behind. (See upcoming essay on 5-Dimensional Universe)With this, potential well cease to have meaning for confinement.

Elsewhere, I have commented with particle model from PicoPhysics describing particle as a collective set of photons. It is bound together by difference in relaxation time characteristic of particle with affected space surrounding the particle.

Picophysics view of stability has two predominant affect;

1. Space surrounding the particle has an affect on particle stability. This results in different cross-sections for interaction with other particles.

2. Result in specific energy level of emitted radiations

3. Nuclear Magic numbers

However, the nuclear dimension of PicoPhysics will be presented at level -4. Only level-1 is publicly available www.picophysics.org

Thanks for the comments. The “central” nuclear potential well has been a source of problems in nuclear structure theory for many decades, so it will be of interest to see if your picophysics can account for experimental facts without that fiction. The magic numbers are important, but their empirical identification is a particularly slippery issue because the “magicness” of proton magic numbers is influenced by the number of neutrons, and vice versa. That is why the textbooks sometimes include 6, 14, 28, 40 and 70 as magic or “semi-magic,” and modern studies on exotic nuclei with huge excesses of protons or neutrons sometimes report the “disappearance” of other magic numbers. The QM “texture” of nuclei is certain (e.g., my Table 2), but the evaluation of “closed” shells is trickier than the evaluation of the inertness of the inert gases in atomic theory.

I think you have another winning essay. You clearly state the issue: "The core problem has been the assumption of a central nuclear potential well to bind nucleons together..."

Since Quantum Chromodynamics is unable to calculate spin and other form factors for the nucleons, and predicted a 'quark gas' instead of the 'perfect fluid' found when heavy ions collide, it is probably not too surprising that the 'nucleon gas' perspective also fails.

What is surprising is that gaseous independent particle model (IPM) mimics the symmetries of the lattice such that "to know the quantum mechanical structure of the nucleus... is to know its lattice structure and vice versa." I was somewhat confused about the meaning of angular momentum quantum number until I found that it's based on the distance from the nuclear spin axis (as I had guessed it must be).

You may recall from my earlier essay and "Chromodynamics War" that my model of nucleons is based on a self-sustained flux tube that provides a pseudo-lattice structure based on nearest-neighbor interactions (at least through the alpha particle and potentially higher). My current essay The Nature of the Wave Function is based on the same field but is focused on the quantum mechanical wave function of free particles and atomic electrons. I have not applied it to the nucleus. As you mention the "many debates concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics", I hope that you find the opportunity to read my essay, and I very much look forward to your comments.

I also found it helpful to read your 2010 monograph and suggest other interested readers do so. Finally, this essay and monograph and your previous essay have inspired me to buy your book on "Models of the Atomic Nucleus". In short, you have convinced me.

Congratulations again on an excellent essay which seems to unarguably challenge a key assumption of the last century.

I too am a fan of your work (and will comment under your essay later) – and especially your book, The Chromodynamics War. The only reason it didn’t make the New York Times best-seller list is that it is relentlessly high-brow, but I think you have identified – and spun an interesting story about – a hugely important conceptual divide between those who value causal coherency versus those who seem to value Standard Model categorization (even when causal coherency is uncertain). In the context of nuclear structure theory, the various nuclear models can account separately for different data sets, but the necessity of jumping from one model to another is jarring for anyone who values coherency… and makes me think there are different understandings of what “understanding” means.

I have gone through your thought-provoking paper dealing with "the core problem has been the assumption of a central nuclear potential-well to bind nucleons together, in analogy with the Coulomb force that binds electrons to the nucleus.”

It is true that the central attractive nuclear Coulomb force compels the atomic electrons to orbit around the nucleus, but this is not...

I have gone through your thought-provoking paper dealing with "the core problem has been the assumption of a central nuclear potential-well to bind nucleons together, in analogy with the Coulomb force that binds electrons to the nucleus.”

It is true that the central attractive nuclear Coulomb force compels the atomic electrons to orbit around the nucleus, but this is not the case for the nucleons in the nucleus. Here, the nuclear interactions are represented by a single-particle potential that has to provide a depth of around 40 MeV to take care of the Fermi kinetic energy of 32 MeV of the nucleons in the nucleus and the nucleon binding energy per nucleon of about 8 MeV, which represents less than 1 % of the nucleon mass keeping the system nonrelativistic. The mean nucleon density of 0.17/ fm ^3, in the nucleus gives a mean distance of around 2fm between the nucleons and the short-range nuclear forces are most effective at this distance with a repulsive core at r = 0.5 fm. These nucleons move around in this self-generated Nuclear Potential aided by the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) and the presence of the hard core, because inside the nucleus all the available states are occupied excluding the possibility of any collision. In this context, the QED cannot be considered worthier than QND, if this is nature’s way.

Over the years, there has been a sharp theoretical-controversy over the water-tight validity of the PEP, but this discussion per se cannot be considered as the last word on this Principle that controls the behavior of Fermions and hence, so much of the universe as we know. Thus, in spite of the nucleon density of 0.17n/fm^3, these fermions with precise momentum and energy values, should have unhindered orbits to move around.

Moreover, the strongly interacting Liquid Drop Model and the Shell Model have been wrongly pitted against each other. The LDP cannot be more liquid than the SM or the other way around, because in both the cases, the same Fermions determine their structure and the interaction-energy content. One has to remember, that the LDM and the LDM-based mass formula of Weiszäker and others, was set up many years before the setting up of the SM.

Here, one often talks about the Mean Free Path (MFP) of nucleons in the nucleus, in the context of the formation of Compound Nucleus. An example, a thermal neutron (zero-kinetic energy) enters the nucleus of, say, 235 U. Once inside the nucleus, its binding energy of 6.5 MeV is freed and it can excite the nucleons of the nucleus only down to 6.5 MeV from the top of the Fermi energy of 32 MeV. These excited nucleons are projected into the unoccupied states of the continuum. Here, understandably, the MFP becomes very short, but this cannot be case, when an occupied state cannot be emptied into the unoccupied continuum states.

One has to conclude that the SM has been and remains the unassailable backbone of low energy nuclear physics with its spherical and deformed shells for the phenomena like spectroscopy, fission, fission-barrier structures and the production of Super Heavy Elements.

The Fcc Lattice Model is a good adventure, but it has to go a long way to root in its value. As an example, in the SM the cold fusion of D+D and the fission of Pd via the heat of the chemical energy, are not conceivable, but it seems that the Lattice Model does not exclude these. If here, the predictive power of this Model is confirmed., it will be its grail.

Many thanks for commenting in such detail (here and elsewhere). Despite obvious differences in perspective, I am not sure how mutually-exclusive our views are. Specifically, I would agree with you that the shell model’s description of “independent” nucleon states is “unassailable”. But the theoretical contortions that are needed to get to that description in a...

Many thanks for commenting in such detail (here and elsewhere). Despite obvious differences in perspective, I am not sure how mutually-exclusive our views are. Specifically, I would agree with you that the shell model’s description of “independent” nucleon states is “unassailable”. But the theoretical contortions that are needed to get to that description in a “nuclear gas” are, I believe, dubious. Moreover, the fact that the final description of nuclear states is precisely replicated in the lattice model suggests an alternative. As most nuclear theorists would admit, the other (liquid-drop, cluster, etc.) models of nuclear structure theory are fundamentally not quantum mechanical (QM) and are, for that reason, widely held to be limited analogies between macroscopic objects and a small set of nuclear properties, but are far from being comprehensive theories of the nuclear world. In that sense, I think the choice for the “one truly comprehensive theory” of the nucleus will necessarily be either the QM lattice or the QM shell model.

There are lots of specialist topics where the two models differ and where a decisive experiment might yet distinguish between them, but let me ask you about the shell model’s invocation of the exclusion principle to justify the “orbiting” of nucleons in the dense nuclear interior. Weisskopf (1951) introduced that idea soon after the first publications on the shell model (1949), and stated it frankly as a hypothesis that needed examination: “It remains to be proved whether this [exclusion] effect is sufficient to establish independent orbits in low-lying states of nuclei in spite of the existence of strong interactions” (Blatt and Weisskopf, 1953, p. 778).

But the hypothesis was soon taken by others to be a fundamental “truth,” and has since been generalized to the form you mention, where the exclusion “principle” is said to be a “force” of nature! Gravity, EM, weak and strong forces….. and the fifth “force” of one particle excluding another particle from entering its QM space by virtue of “exclusion”. I am not the only one who finds that logic a little bit strange. Herzberg (1937, p. 123), Condon and Shortley (1935, p. 167), Yang and Hamilton (“its physical basis remains an open puzzle”, 1996, p. 193) and a handful of others over the years have commented that, as true as the exclusion principle is in describing certain fermion phenomena in both atomic and nuclear physics (and even QCD), it still needs to be explained on the basis of underlying physical forces.

The invocation of the exclusion principle in nuclear theory is an example of the kind of domino effect that faulty assumptions produce: If you assume an experimentally unknown central nuclear potential around which nucleons orbit, you then need to explain how the nucleons can squeeze past each other in a substance as dense as nuclei. If the nuclear volume were much larger or the nucleons much smaller, then nucleon collisions might be sufficiently infrequent and their “orbiting” might be justified. But a typical heavy nucleus like Lead has more than 200 nucleons (rms radius, 0.9 fm) inside of a rather small nuclear volume (rms radius, 5.5 fm), making the nuclear interior about one-half filled with nucleons and making the nucleon “mean-free path” extremely short. So, having made the faulty assumption of a central nuclear potential, a nuclear gas is implied, but in order to justify nucleon orbiting, the exclusion principle must then elevated to the level of a “force of nature”.

So, I see what the shell model theorists are up to, but a less tortured view of nuclear structure is to accept the short-range nuclear force inherent to the liquid-drop model (and experimentally known!) – and simply forget about the novel use of the exclusion principle as a force of nature. All of the shell model QM states of nucleons are retained in a frozen liquid-drop (the nucleon lattice) – and the lattice shares most of the macroscopic properties already described in the liquid-drop model.

In the end, does the lattice model today accomplish as much as the shell model, independent-particle model, the liquid-drop model and the cluster models have achieved?! The answer is: Not yet. But, if you would be so kind as to send me 10,000 graduate students and a few years of supercomputer time, I think we will leave the shell model in the trash bin of history where Ptolemy hangs out.

I hesitate to enter a discussion between two such highly qualified nuclear physicists, but as you note,there are unresolved quantum issues involved.

It is my opinion that the exclusion principle is neither a principle nor a 'force', but a consequence of the physical wave function discussed in my essay, to the effect that the physical wave function of fermions will interfere in such a manner as to preclude their occupying the identically same state.

This model of the nucleon wave function predicts (at the same particle velocity) a physical wave six orders of magnitude weaker than that of the electron, based strictly on mass density. This should be significant from the perspective of de Broglie 'steering' of the particles. Additionally, the associated nuclear model tends to support a lattice structure, or at the very least lattice-based alpha particles.

The model is very new and has no establishment support at the current stage of development, yet at the informal level of FQXi blog comments I feel safe in saying the model supports Dr. Cook's lattice model.

The various models of the nucleus have a long history, going back to the 1930s, and I often refer to the Fermi-gas model, the shell model and the independent-particle model (IPM) collectively as the “gaseous-phase” models. As you note, in fact, their theoretical foundations are quite different. The Fermi-gas model was little more...

The various models of the nucleus have a long history, going back to the 1930s, and I often refer to the Fermi-gas model, the shell model and the independent-particle model (IPM) collectively as the “gaseous-phase” models. As you note, in fact, their theoretical foundations are quite different. The Fermi-gas model was little more than an analogy with the gas contained within a fictitious boundary. The early shell model was constructed around the idea of a central potential well – in analogy with atomic structure, but of course without any central attracting object that could act as the central potential. The “central potential well” was assumed to be the net result of the many local, nucleon-nucleon interactions... an interesting idea, maybe, but purely hypothetical as a mechanism for binding nucleons together into a stable nucleus. Everyone understood and most textbooks acknowledged that the central potential well was a dubious ploy, but the shell model nonetheless had many theoretical successes.

As you have commented, the modern IPM utilizes a nuclear force. From the perspective of theoretical coherency, the use of a realistic short-range nuclear force is huge progress. Unfortunately, the modern IPM also requires a theoretical “trick” to make the model work. That is,the Pauli exclusion principle must be “enhanced” to maintain the “gaseous” phase that the short-range force, on its own, would not allow.

As connoisseurs of nuclear structure theory well know, the exclusion principle was first suggested by Weisskopf in 1950 as a possible mechanism to allow nucleons to move like the particles within a gas under the influence of the shell model’s (fictitious) central potential well. He argued that “exclusion” might justify the shell model’s underlying theoretical assumptions, but the exclusion principle has been, over the decades, gradually “enhanced”. Instead of a simple statement that “no two fermions can have the same set of quantum numbers” (which was Pauli’s original formulation of “exclusion”), the exclusion effects have been referred to as “Pauli blocking” and even as the “Pauli force”. It is not clear, dynamically, what that “force” is (and others have complained about this reification of Pauli exclusion into a force of nature), but without the “blocking” of the powerful short-range nuclear force effects, the nucleus would condense into a high-density liquid or solid.

That is of course precisely what the fcc lattice version of the IPM predicts. If it is assumed that, without a Pauli “force”, nucleons condense to a solid of nucleons (a close-packed, antiferromagnetic face-centered-cubic lattice with alternating proton and neutron layers), then it is easily shown that the properties of that particular lattice neatly reproduce all of the quantum number properties of the nucleus – for which the IPM is justly famous.

So, I return again to the seemingly paradoxical position that I have stated before: I fully agree with Prof. Asghar that the “shell model” (IPM) has been wildly successful over many decades. Those successes cannot be ignored, but I maintain that the gaseousness of the shell model (and the implied nucleon orbiting and the Pauli blocking of the inevitable collisions of orbiting nucleons) is not necessary to explain the IPM quantal regularities, insofar as the lattice contains the same regularities. From a conventional point of view, it may seem unfair for the “new kid in town” – the fcc lattice model – to stake a claim for the shell model’s theoretical successes, but I maintain that it is simply uncertain which model is mimicking the other!

Without the quantum mechanical properties (the independent-particle states) of the IPM, the extensive and rigorous data on thousands upon thousands of nuclear isotopes become incoherent, so that the known shells and subshells of the IPM – and the occupancies of nucleons in those shells and subshells under the influence of the exclusion principle – appear to be essential. But I think that factors of serendipity and chance, more than logical necessity, led to the overwhelming predominance of the gaseous-phase shell model and it becoming the central paradigm of nuclear structure physics, while Wigner’s original proposal of the lattice structure of the nucleus in 1936 was seen simply as a mathematical analog (and Everling’s suggestion of the lattice as a coherent nuclear model in 1958, and Lezuo’s solid-phase formulation in 1974, and subsequent developments in the same direction have been ignored).

There are undoubtedly other criteria that can distinguish between the solid-phase and the gaseous-phase models, but it appears that neither model can assert that the well-established independent-particle systematics of the nucleus unambiguously supports one model over the other.

I know that all is suimposed with a pure discrimination of me.You shall pay for this strategy and also for the bad implied. Your only one solution is to kill me before that I arrive in USA. and be sure I will come soon, very soon. I love the USA , you cannot lie about my faith and my heart. You cannot invent falses things for your own vanity and strategy.New York you say, ok my friends, no probelm.IO am a real christian, me , I have read the bibble at the age of 16.You think really that you can make all what you want , when you want and how you want and for what you want.Let me laugh dear vanitious, dear badband. Let me laugh.Even dead I wilml come in your dreams during the night, just to explain you your errors and what is the spherization. You cannot win.be sure.me alone with a weak pc at home psychologically weak, and without monney and you with your tools and your hate.you shall loose here on earth or after my death, it is not a probelm.I have my list. I know these persons, I know you my friends. Even with your superimposings of threads and checking of my pc, be sure ,you shall understand. You have just an idea of me at home with the youngs. You do not imagine my sufferings in the past. You do not imagine my life.I had an enterprize at 23 years old.Politicians have caused me a bankrupcy. I am still alive. You know really that I am goin,g to be at home always with my smoke. Let me laugh. Will laugh well who will laugh at the end !!!

I know the team of bad persons from New York.But don't forget a thing my friends, your country is the country of the freedom.And also that it exists wonderful persons at New York. I will change this town me.You you destroy it !

Revolution spherization of NEW YORK my friends.Irritating no? you fear , logic.You are going to make an other strategy, logic.You are going to make a reunion.Logic. But I arrive my friends. You thought that it was possible with the spinoza godelian approach in a cantorian road for a respect of Einstein.Me also I am a rationalist and also an universalist and also a real innovator. Let me laugh. New york, I arrive for the spherization revolution optimization.

there you do not delete , no but frankly Brendan. You know what ? it is not very well all this strategy from a team of vanitious full of hate. It is not acceptable. Fqxi is an universal platform. These strategies are simply bizare.

You delete like you want in fact in function of your strategy with your friends. It is bizare.It is not well. Just for a discrimination of me. You find all that logic and well you.

Persons making these kind of things are not generalists or universalists, it is not possible. Shocking in fact. The sciences community must be transparent and universal. It is essential. So why these bad comportments. I beleive simply that it is a question of vanity, of taste of opulences and money, a question of hate and unconsciousness simply. In fact, people lacking of competence the most of the time acts in this sad line of reasoning.Probably that it is due to education or I don't know me. the hormons also perhaps.The jealousy, the hate and the spite more the vanity are really catalyzers of these kind of comportments. It is simply a sad reality. I knew that people are ready to all to satisfy their own vanity and their taste of money. Let's pray for them.Hope they shall evolve after all, it is the most important.

In discussing the complexity of the nuclear version of the Schrodinger wave equation, you say "The first is that the nucleus contains two types of nucleon, protons and neutrons, that are distinguished in terms of the so-called isospin quantum number i. The second is the notion of the coupling of orbital angular momentum (l) with intrinsic angular momentum (s) - giving each nucleon a total angular momentum qunatum value (j=l+s)."

Using these ideas and "a strong and short-range nuclear force that acted only among nearest-neighbor nucleons" you show an FCC structure describes a "shell model descriptions of nuclear spins, magnetic moments, shells, subshells and parity states.."

Unfortunately, you also point out "The nuclear lattice does not of course address issues of nucleon substructure or the interpretation of quantum theory itself, and many aspects of quantum 'weirdness' remain enigmas in the lattice."

I liked your essay and learned a lot, especially the clarity the two tables bring to the subject.

There are other models that match the results of these two tables. Consider big thin shells layered on top of each other. Intrinsic angular momentum (s), is modelled as the spin of that shell and orbital angular momentum (l) is modelled as the spin around the axis of the particles precession, which is independent of the intrinsic spin. Animations showing the Larmor frequency of this style of particle can be seen here. Hope you may be so inclined to comment on this.

I remain "agnostic" on most subnucleon issues (quarks, partons and the essence of space-time). Maybe I am just wishy-washy Charlie Brown for that, but I suspect that there are (molecular, atomic and) nuclear structure problems that can and SHOULD BE addressed without postulating explanatory mechanisms from other levels. If they really explain things, that's fine. But if the "explanations" simply shift the puzzle to a different level, they don't solve anything. Conversely, if they are truly explanatory principles - like the Larmor frequency you point out - then the implications should be developed at various levels. Cheers.

Thank you for the reaction to my comment on your article. This allows me once more to clarify a few points:

1. The SM potential is not central like for the QED but it is the self-generated single-particle potential due to all the nucleons of the nucleus in which they are supposed to move freely. If it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that the PEP and hard core cannot ensure this unhindered movement, one has to find another reason to understand the validity of this fundamental Model. Since more than 60 years, this SM has been the unassailable source – nay, the raison d’être, with an immense predictive power, for the vast enterprise of Low Energy nuclear physics. Its vast and unique heritage cannot be wished away or pushed down just as a trash (even of the future history) simply by condemning it to be artificial in its conception, because the lack of understanding of something should not make it artificial.

2. The Fcc Lattice Model is an elegant enterprise, but its range of validity remains to be shown on the ground in its own right. Of course, you will not get 10000 PhD students and an unlimited computing power to prove the capacity of this Model. However, as I tried to suggest before, one has to find something that the Lattice Model can treat, but the SM cannot deal with. This seems to be case for the chemically induced cold fusion of D+D and the fission of Pd. Of course, there may some other things too. The uniqueness of these phenomena will be a powerful backing and justification for this Model in its own right.

3. Please avoid these caravans of citations that have a tendency to end up as the truth on the point treated and this does not do any good to anybody. Moreover, these comments have to be made without hankering after any applause and panegyrics. Finally, I am grateful for the opportunity for these objective comments (and elsewhere) and wish all the best for the Fcc Lattice Model and its practitioners.

The Pauli exclusion principle is a quantum topology. The PEP states that ψψ = 0, where we may then see this as a form of d^2 = 0, which is the dual of ∂∂ = 0 (the boundary of a boundary = 0) in topology. This becomes generalized in supersymmetric form with generators Q. The state ψ is such that Qψ = 0, but where ψ =/= Qχ. Therefore the state is ψ \in kerQ/imQ = H^1(Q), which is a cohomology ring.

The PEP permits one to write a large Slater determinant for the wave function composed of the wave function of each nucleon. The potential between each nucleon would be the Yukawa potential

V(r) = Ae^{-λr}/r

The space would then in an equilibrium situation assume an “egg carton” potential function, where each pocket would exist at each nucleon. It would then seem possible to write a numerical program to simulate a nucleus and to determine which of these models is most accurate.

I'm sure you have enough difficulty swimming against the IPM stream without tying your theory to mine, but I have realized another way in which my theory supports lattice theory. Recall my self-induced flux tube model of the neutron. This model qualitatively explains the eternal(?) life of the proton versus the 800 second life of the neutron, unless the neutron is closely coupled to a nearest neighbor such as in deuterium or an alpha particle. Your lattice would seem to support such nearest neighnbor coupling with consequent extension of neutron stability for billions of years. A 'gas' model of neutrons (in which "the nucleus itself must be considered to be a tiny gas of "point-like" protons and neutrons that freely orbit within the nuclear interior.") in orbit about a central potential well would not extend neutron life at all.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

I've just read your essay for the 2nd time, and found the parts I understood very interesting and informative. I've cited the nuclear force derivation of Vladimir analogised with dipoles orbiting a toroid. The nuclear Tokomak and AGN then come into play, neither 'point like' and both with multiple spin axis. Things like Hopft fibration and magnetospheres are in the same family, which critically, are founded on the concept of motion. Could there be any analogy here with your visualisation of lattice nucleodynamics?

I believe your current lowly position shows that possibly the most pertinent part of physics is is too often ignored. I could really do with your input to a mechanism I consider in my own essay which relies on results of charge interaction at a nucleodynamic level. The macro results are astounding, if different to current physics because they work, but the interaction details I work up to may also I hope, give you food for thought. Certainly a good score coming your way whatever, and I hope you agree mine also worth one. I'll value your comments equally.

I have enjoyed your essay too. You have packed a lot into 11 pages and we will have to continue "off line", but my only criticism of your approach is that it covers so much. In your final figure (Fig. 4) seems to be the point from which you can "rebuild" the universe... conceptually similar to Tamari's starting point. I would be curious to see what that implies for the relatively "macroscopic" issues of nuclear structure.

Hello Norman. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

I am happy to read your essay here and to learn more about nuclear interactions and structure.

You report the dichotomy between the IPM and LDM models. In a sense this remind me of the old dichotomy between the wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Both formulations were shown to be finally equivalent. Is there some possibility of that IPM and LDM models can be considered equivalent or quasi-equivalent at least for some range of the nuclear phenomena? For instance, it is possible to relate the long-range potential of the former model with the short-range potential acting only among nearest-neighbour nucleons of the latter; specifically, I have in mind some kind of screening.

And a second question. Can the lattice structure be obtained from the Laplacian of the density in the same way how we can obtain the lattice structure of a solid from the Laplacian of the electronic density?

As August Kekulé wrote: "Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, and then perhaps we shall learn the truth."

I think the different nucler models are in fact each "correct" in their own way. There should be ways to translate between them, and the fcc lattice is one such translation mechanism.

I have struggled to find a more appropriate expression for the lattice coordinates. Maybe the Laplacian of the 3D structure would connect more directly with experimental data somehow, but I keep returning to the simplicities of 3D solid geometry. The advantage of solid geometry is that it is easy to understand. The disadvantage is that it appears to be "pre-modern" and a crazy attempt to return to the world of earth-fire-and-water and platonic solids. I don't think that is the case, but in fact few nuclear structure theorists have even commented on the strange (but wonderful) identity between nuclear symmetries and fcc symmetries.

This is a good presentation and continuation of build-up on complex contemporary thought process. In PicoPhysics (current state) we have basics of quantization and integration of contemporary physics (fundamental laws of nature) including that deals with quantum states as well as structure of particles (photons, elementary particles, nucleus, atoms, molecules, matter. and astronomical objects like...

This is a good presentation and continuation of build-up on complex contemporary thought process. In PicoPhysics (current state) we have basics of quantization and integration of contemporary physics (fundamental laws of nature) including that deals with quantum states as well as structure of particles (photons, elementary particles, nucleus, atoms, molecules, matter. and astronomical objects like dark matter, stars, planets & asteroid, Cosmic background radiations as they all represent different state of Knergy in a continuous Matter-Cycle).

The PicoPhysics treatment is different. It looks at the universe through the prism of two realities - Knergy-matter that is Konserved and Space that is not. The interaction between them is stated simply as Space contains Knergy.

Picophysics view on Quantum Electrodynamics:

A PicoPhysicist believe the conservation of energy is the result of mismatch between relaxation time of space (the time space takes to react to change in distribution of Knergy) and the dynamics of confinement of Knergy in space. The relaxation time is represented by Hubble’s constant of contemporary physics and is seen as continuous reduction of energy of photon as it travels through space. The quantization of Knergy is the result of Konservation in PicoPhysics and is absolute giving us a natural unit of measure. The interaction between two particles can be with/without exchange of these quanta of Knergy. Thus the view of PicoPhysics is somewhat in line with QED of contemporary physics.

Exception to QED: Except one difference that presence of photon as exchange particle in the interaction is not an absolute necessity for transfer of energy between two particles.

However, QED can also be seen as an attempt to explain away issue of wave particle duality. In PicoPhysics we don’t have this paradox as the wave properties are obtained as interaction of Knergy-Matter with space. The wave-particle duality observations are well encapsulated in Unary law ‘Space contains Knergy-matter’.

Since, I am working out a line of argument very different than contemporary thinking I do not go into details as presented in this essay. Overall it seems to be work coming out of a well documented study of subject and keen observation.

From PicoPhysics perspective, Quantum Nucleodynamics issue concerns Superposition. The energy content per unit Knergy of nucleon is proportional to Knergy density. However, when superposition takes place, it is no more dependant on Knergy density, but partial density of associated Knergy unit. For example an alpha particle have lower energy than 4 individual nucleons if each were occupying one fourth of nuclear real space, due to superposition induced reduction of associated energy.

Though nuclear stability is result of superposition, the factors that affect degree of superposition needs to be worked out by studying the cross-sections for various nuclear reactions. This is time consuming process, and need to be left to next generation.

Even if Quantization or probablistic nature is explained, currently we can answer in general - relative suseptibility of a defined nucleus for a nuclear reaction.

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is

and

was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have

of points. After it anyone give you

of points so you have

of points and

is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have

of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:

or

or

In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points

then the participant`s rating

was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

I like your down-to-earth approach to nuclear structure! Binding energies, magnetic moments and quadrupole moments are essential empirical data that any sensible nuclear model must deal with. The smallest nuclei A

The model I consider brings some new simple intuitions also to nuclear physics - maybe you will see them interesting. It is a search for configuration of interaction fields building particles - soliton particle model, but not only of single mesons or baryons like Skyrme model, but the ambitious goal is to find a "complete soliton model" - a relatively simple single field which family of local configurations would correspond to the whole particle menagerie and their dynamics. It can be seen as expansion by single dof of Faber's model, which reformulates Maxwell's equations to no longer allow for any charge, but as in nature: only multiplicities of the elemental one (Gaussian law counts topological charge).

Jumping to baryons, their structure in this model enforces some charge-like configuration, but does not require the whole elementary charge - some fraction is enough. So while total charge have to be quantized, locally it can split into quark-like local constructs, but this splitting is energetically costly - what naturally explains why neutron is heavier than proton or what holds deuteron together: proton shares part of its charge with neutron. The picture is on page 7 of my essay.

I find your essay to be a very plausible, intuitive way to build up quantum phenomena.

My first impression is that we need something like Tamari's model at the ground level, your model to introduce dynamics, and then something like Paolo Palazzi's summation rules (http://www.particlez.org/p3a/index.html) to get the spectrum of particle masses and lifetimes.

In that view, "nuclear structure" is rather macroscopic, but might be built from those coherent microscopic arguments.

Maybe we can reconstruct the massive edifice of theoretical physics after all!

Thank you very much for your supporting comments. I would love to finally start quantitative consideration, but it is a really tough job: finding the exact Lagrangian combined with performing really difficult numerical simulations. Unfortunately I cannot find cooperation to work on such nonstandard approach, prof. Faber shares the belief of "complete soliton model" existence,...

Thank you very much for your supporting comments. I would love to finally start quantitative consideration, but it is a really tough job: finding the exact Lagrangian combined with performing really difficult numerical simulations. Unfortunately I cannot find cooperation to work on such nonstandard approach, prof. Faber shares the belief of "complete soliton model" existence, but he focuses on much more complex trial of expanding his basic model. Maybe you could think of somebody who could be interested in cooperation to move such approach forward?

About "building up quantum phenomena" - while I was on Emergent Quantum Mechanics congress a year ago (proceedings), most of the speakers were talking about double-slit experiment ... I think there are already good intuitions where quantum phenomenas come from (e.g. by great Couder's experiments) - they are the consequences of two factors: the wave conjugated with particle and that QM is kind of thermodynamical level theory - averaging complex dynamics, what is greatly seen e.g. in the shell nuclear model. I believe it is finally the time to search for concrete models below this effective quantum description, but looking at the congress, there are very few people interested in finally making the next step ...

About combining "complete soliton approach" with different models, it doesn't leave freedom for that: we just take a simple field (e.g. real symmetric tensor field) and Lagrangian: kinetic term (like Faber's interpreting field curvature as electromagnetic field) and potential term (Higgs-like - with topologically nontrivial energy minimum) ... and ask for consequences. Of course there is some freedom of choosing Lagrangian within a single approach, but most of consequences are very stiff - topological. So basically it is all or nothing approach - a single essential qualitative discrepancy and it probably goes to trash.

So practically the only way to combine it with other models is to see them as its effect - what can be very valuable while choosing the Lagrangian or to disqualify given approach. Thank you for the Palazzi's phenomenological models - I will try to see them through my model.

I was happy to kick you up the list and watch you get into the finalists. I don't really understand the mechanism by which you were knocked out after close of voting, but I know you belong there. I very much appreciated your essay and hope you will enter another one next year.

In a comment to Rob McEachern you remark that, " I too have a small collection of journal referee comments stating that my nuclear model is "inconsistent with the uncertainty principle" and therefore "not quantum mechanical" and therefore simply wrong - no matter what kind of agreement with experimental data is found."

You may find that your approach to the uncertainty principle receives some support in Physical Review Letters 109, 100404 (7 Sept 2012) in which the authors experimentally observe a violation of Heisenberg's "measurement-disturbance relationship" and demonstrate Heisenberg's original formulation to be wrong. I hope this is of some relevance to you.

Also, the same issue contains another paper, #103401, which addresses yet another approach to the 4% discrepancy in the proton radius determined by muonic-hydrogen experiments. They conclude that they have refuted all reasonable hypotheses aiming to resolve the "proton radius puzzle" with the help of three-body physics. Although I have not yet quantitatively solved this problem, my proton model is qualitatively consistent with reality.